Categories
All Countries Ethiopia

2021 RLLR 105

Citation: 2021 RLLR 105
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 16, 2021
Panel: Kay Scorer
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Paul Vandervennen
Country: Ethiopia
RPD Number: VC1-07067
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: I have considered your testimony and the other evidence before me and I’m prepared to give you with my decision now.

INTRODUCTION

[2]       These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX last name is spelled XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, a citizen of Ethiopia who is claiming protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[3]       In coming to this decision, I’ve considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guidelines on Women Fearing Gender-Based Persecution.

DETERMINATION

[4]       For the reasons that follow, I find that the claimant has established that she is a Convention refugee.

ALLEGATIONS

[5]       The claimant’s allegations are contained in full in her Basis of Claim form and narrative, which can be found in Exhibit 2.

[6]       Briefly, the claimant is a Tigray woman who fears ethnic and political persecution in Ethiopia.

[7]       The claimant’s parents have opposed the EPRDF government since they took power in Ethiopia and for the past five (5) years, the claimant’s father has been an active member of the Arena Tigray Party, ATP. The ATP advocates for a quality and freedom of the Tigray people. The claimant’s father has been involved with writing petitions to the prime minister and other high-ranking officials of the Ethiopian government and asking them to intervene in the ethnic clashes and genocide taking place in Ethiopia.

[8]       In about October 2020, the claimant’s father was arrested.

[9]       The claimant was in New York at the time, as she worked as a flight attendant for Ethiopian airways.

[10]     When she returned to Ethiopia, she attempted to see her father but was denied access. Her father was not able to speak to anybody, including to his own lawyer.

[11]     The claimant approached the Superior Court of Justice in an area called Lideta, L-I-D-E-T-A. She spoke to a man who assisted others in filing legal documents. She told him about her father’s situation and he helped her (inaudible) a very strong petition, citing the constitution, the penal code and universal conventions. The letter demanded that the police release the claimant’s father.

[12]     She then served this letter on the police station, that was holding her father and thought that it would initiate his release. Unfortunately, the day after serving this document, two (2) police officers went to the claimant’s home and told her that she was wanted for questioning. She was taken to the station, accused of helping the ATP and accused of communicating with the opposition in a diaspora, including monetary support from abroad, that she was facilitating through her work. She claim — the claimant was physically assaulted and kept detained for a few days, until she was released on bail. Immediately after that, she was scheduled to fly to Canada for work and she left just a few days later.

[13]     When she arrived in Canada, she defected from her crew, went to a shelter and immediately initiated her claim for protection.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[14]     I find the claimant’s identity as a national of Ethiopia is established, on a balance of probabilities, by her testimony and the other evidence before me, namely a copy of her Ethiopian passport, which can be found in Exhibit 1.

Nexus

[15]     I find the claimant has established a nexus to the Convention grounds of race, ethnicity, gender and political opinion.

[16]     Therefore, I have decided this claim under section 96 of the Act.

Credibility

[17]     The claimant benefits from the presumption that her allegations are true.

[18]     In this case, I find no reason to doubt this presumption. The claimant testified in a spontaneous and forthcoming manner and there were no material inconsistencies between her testimony and the other evidence before me.

[19]     Ultimately, I found the claimant’s testimony compelling and I believe what she has alleged.

[20]     The claimant also provided ample supporting documents to corroborate her allegations; including her work badges from XXXX XXXX; a copy of the legal petition that she served on the police station, to try and facilitate her father’s release; a copy of a letter from the XXXX XXXX, indicating that she was being fired for defecting; supporting letters corroborating the events, as outlined in the claimant’s forms; pictures of her protesting in Canada and holding anti-government signs; her bail document, confirming the requirements of release and political membership documents, corroborating her father’s political affiliations.

[21]     All of this can be found in Exhibit 4 and 5.

[22]     I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of any of these documents. I assign them significant weight, as they help establish the central elements of the claimant’s allegations.

[23]     I find the claimant has established, on a balance of probabilities, that she is a Tigrayan woman who was wanted by the Ethiopian authorities.

[24]     I find she has established that her father was an active member of an opposition party; that he was detained for a significant period of time; that the claimant was also detained when she attempted to help her father; that the claimant was accused by the authorities of using her XXXX XXXX XXXX to facilitate money transfers from the diaspora to political opponents and that the authorities have continued to date to visit the family in Ethiopia, to ask for information about her whereabouts.

WellFounded Fear of Persecution

[25]     For a claimant to be a Convention refugee, the claimant must have a well-founded fear of persecution, due to a Convention ground. The Convention grounds are race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group and political opinion.

[26]     As noted before, I find the harm the claimant fears is by reason of her ethnicity as a Tigrayan, her actual and imputed political opinion and I find that these risks are exacerbated by her gender as a woman.

[27]     I find the objective evidence before me establishes that the claimant’s fears of persecution are objectively well-founded.

[28]     The country condition evidence, which is in the NDP for Ethiopia found in Exhibit 3, supports the claimant’s allegations as follows.

[29]     At Item 4.21 of the NDP, it details the deteriorating security and human rights situation in Ethiopia. It confirms the arrest of over 9,000 people, including anti-government critics. Other reports note that since the assassinations and alleged attempting coup of June 2019, the government has openly crackdown on dissent and opposition, using the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation to arrest, detain and charge people, including journalists and other political dissidents.

[30]     At Items 2.1 and 1.4, the evidence indicates that the current prime minister has introduced positive changes to the human rights climate by welcoming back political dissidents overseas and improving some press freedom and decriminalizing political opposition groups.

[31]     However, at Item 4.21, it confirms that the State continues to direct violence at actual and imputed government opponents, including through continued detention at government re-education camps, where detainees are actively enduring brainwashing.

[32]     At NDP 2.1, it confirms on the night of November 3rd, 2020, a war erupted between federal troops, including the Ethiopian defense forces and Amhara militia and the regional state of Tigray. Following the outbreak of this deadly conflict, Tigrayans living in the embattled area in Tigray and those living in other parts of Ethiopia, have become the target of severe violence, including air bombardment, drone strikes and artillery fire. Approximately 50,000 civilians have fled to neighbouring Sudan and more than 1.3 million civilians have been internally displaced. The active expelling and massacring Tigrayan civilian communities, including children, could be classified as war crimes and by some accounts, amounts to genocide. Tigrayans in other parts of the country also face ethnic profiling, mass detention, travel bans, arbitrary arrests, like the claimant herself has experienced, dismissals and forced disappearances.

[33]     In the claimant’s own evidence, in Exhibit 5, a recent U.S. news report states that “witnesses say thousands of Tigrayans are being detained and their businesses closed, in a new wave of ethnic targeting by Ethiopian authorities over the eight (8) month conflict in the Tigray region.”

[34]     Based on the totality of the evidence, including the claimant’s specific profile as a Tigray woman, who’s already come to the attention and interest of the authorities in Ethiopia, for her father’s involvement with the ATP, I find the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution, if she were to return to Ethiopia.

State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative

[35]     There is a presumption that, unless in complete breakdown, states are capable of protecting their citizens.

[36]     However, I find the presumption in this case has been rebutted.

[37]     The agent of harm in this case is the State.

[38]     I find it would be unreasonable to request the claimant to approach the State for protection, when it’s the State who has detained her and continues to threaten her.

[39]     Accordingly, I find there is no state protection available.

[40]     I find that the presumption has been rebutted.

[41]     In addition, the authorities in Ethiopia are in control of all of their territory.

[42]     As a result, I find the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution throughout the country.

[43]     Therefore, I find there’s no viable internal flight alternative for this claimant in all of Ethiopia.

CONCLUSION

[44]     In conclusion, I find the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Act and I therefore accept her claim.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries Hungary

2021 RLLR 104

Citation: 2021 RLLR 104
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 30, 2021
Panel: David Jones
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Kristina Cooke
Country: Hungary
RPD Number: VC1-05525
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: So, this is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada for the claim of XXXX XXXX who is a citizen of Hungary seeking refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2]       I also reviewed and applied the Chairperson’s guideline on women refugee claimants fearing gender related persecution.

Allegations:

[3]       The claimant fears persecution if she were to return Hungary based on her Roma background. The claimant also left Hungary due to her fears from her ex-partner XXXX(ph) XXXX(ph).

[4]       Details of the claimant’s allegations can be found in her Basis of Claim Form and Narrative, including the amendments found at Exhibit 6. The following is a summary of the claimant’s allegations and testimony.

[5]       The claimant’s parents were Roma. The claimant described her mother as light skinned Roma who is possibly half Roma.

[6]       In the 2013, the claimant met her ex-partner. The allegations describe numerous incidents where the claimant was a victim of physical abuse from her ex-partner throughout the entirety of their relationship.

[7]       The claimant also described numerous problems she experienced due to her Roma ethnicity. These include harassment and discrimination when she was at school, during employment, with public transportation, and in receiving healthcare,

[8]       Further, the claimant provided examples of violence she suffered due to her ethnicity. For example, in 2015, the claimant was attacked along with other Roma by skinned heads in Budapest when she was selling XXXX. Also, in 2015, the claimant began to save money in order to leave Hungary. The claimant only told her son her plans for leaving the country.

[9]       On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018 the claimant left Hungary for Canada and claimed refugee protection.

Determination:

[10]     I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee.

ANALYSIS:

Identity:

[11]     The claimant’s identity as a citizen of Hungary has been established, on a balance of probabilities, by the claimant’s testimony and Hungarian passport which is located at Exhibit 1.

Nexus:

[12]     The allegations establish a nexus to a Convention ground for the claimant based on her ethnicity as Roma. The allegations may also support another nexus, but given my determination I find it unnecessary to assess an alternative nexus.

Credibility:

[13]     I find that, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant has established her Roma ethnicity. In making that finding I’m relying on the principle that a claimant who affirms to tell the truth creates a presumption of truthfulness unless there are reasons to doubt their truthfulness.

[14]     In this regard, the claimant was able to describe incidents of discrimination throughout her life. The claimant testified that in her primary school she and other Roma students had to sit at the back of the classroom, and how there was a lot of hatred directed towards the Roma students.

[15]     The claimant also described incidents of discrimination when trying to find employment at her workplace, and while she was on the bus, as well as trying to obtain healthcare. The claimant described why she believed that the country conditions for Roma are the same throughout the country.

[16]     The claimant also testified that she would be identified as Roma due to her appearance, and she gave detailed testimony about Roma burial practices.

[17]     Finally, the claimant was able to answer specific questions when asked without apparent embellishment. There were no relevant inconsistencies between the claimant’s testimony and the other evidence. And as such, I find that the claimant was a credible witness.

[18]     The claimant also provided personal documents to support her claim found at Exhibit 4. These include medical records for the claimant. When asked why the claimant provided the documents she testified that she misunderstood what type of documents she needed to provide.

[19]     While I’ve no reason to doubt genuineness of these documents, I find that they have no relevance in the hearing today and I give them no weight.

[20]     Nonetheless, the credibility of the claimant does allow me to find that the claimant has established, on a balance of probabilities, the facts alleged in her claim, including her Roma background and her subjective fear of returning to Hungary.

Objective Basis:

[21]     The objective evidence supports the claimant’s fears of returning to Hungary due to her Roma ethnicity. For example, a 2021 response to information request at Item 13.5 in the National Documentation Package for Hungary, which is found at Exhibit 3, indicates that Roma in Hungary face widespread discrimination regardless of residence, education, and social status.

[22]     The report notes that discrimination exists in areas … sorry. The discrimination exists in access to justice, housing, employment, education, and healthcare. The report also indicates that Roma are subject to violence, and that Roma women face multiple intersectional forms of discrimination based on ethnicity and gender.

[23]     Another example can be found at … in a 2021 US Department of State report found at Item 2.1. That report states that and I quote,

Human rights NGOs continue to report that Roma suffered social and economic exclusion and discrimination in almost all fields of life. According to an October 12th report prepared for the Council of Europe by the advisory committee on the framework Convention for the protection of national minorities, Roma face discrimination in education, employment, and access to housing and healthcare.

[24]     The report also indicates that significant human rights issues in Hungary include threats of violence by extremists targeting Roma.

[25]     Further, with respect to violence, a 2019 response to information report on extremist violence against Roma described how racist violence against Roma remain one of the most pressing issues in the country. The RIR also quotes reports that an increasing number of Hungary … Hungarian youths are joining far right wing and neo-Nazi movements.

[26]     The claimant also provided numerous country condition documents found at Exhibit 7. These include articles that highlight specific incidents of discrimination the Roma face in Hungary with respect to housing, education, employment, and family unity.

[27]     Further, other recent articles describe the anti-Roma hatred and violence from far right groups in the country.

[28]     I find that the claimant has established, in addition to the incidents of violence, that she has faced cumulative ethnic discrimination in all aspects of her life that amount to persecution.

[29]     Given there is no indication that the conditions have improved in the country for the Roma people, I find that the claimant would face more than a mere possibly of persecution if she were to return to Hungary.

State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative:

[30]     I’ve considered whether State protection is available to the claimant.

[31]     The objective evidence, including reports noted above, indicates that anti-Roma prejudice is present among police officers, and Roma are subject to ethnic profiling.

[32]     For example, a 2018 response to information request found at Item 10.1 states a number of sources who indicate that the police often fail to investigate and prosecute credible claims of hate crimes, and that Roma face continued hostility from police forces. This is similar to the claimant’s belief.

[33]     The claimant testified that the police have an attitude that they don’t care about what happens to the Roma people. The claimant said that the police knew skinheads were around and assaulting the Roma people selling produce and took no action. The claimant testified that she believed that the police were racist and did not help the Roma people.

[34]     Given the totality of the evidence, I find that there’s no operationally effective State protection available to the claimant in her particular circumstances,

[35]     Further, given that there is insufficient evidence to show that there’s a location in Hungary where the Roma do not face discrimination and violence and with the lack of State protection noted above, I find that there is no viable internal flight alternative available to the claimant as she would face more than a mere possibility of persecution anywhere in the country.

CONCLUSION:

[36]     For the foregoing reasons I determine that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and the Board therefore accepts the claim.

[37]     Thank you. And, Madam Interpreter, whenever you’re ready just, please go ahead.———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries Sri Lanka

2021 RLLR 103

Citation: 2021 RLLR 103
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 2, 2021
Panel: Zonia M. Tock
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ian Hamilton
Country: Sri Lanka
RPD Number: VB9-08392
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) concerning XXXX XXXX (the “claimant”) who is a citizen of Sri Lanka and is making a claim for refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act”).[i]

DETERMINATION

  • I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Act as he faces more than a mere possibility of persecution should he return to Sri Lanka. The nexus between the claimant’s allegations and the Convention is political opinion.

ALLEGATIONS

  • The claimant’s allegations are contained in his Basis of Claim (BOC) form and the attached narrative.[ii] In summary, the claimant alleges that the Sri Lankan government is targeting him due to a perceived connection to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).
  • The claimant is an ethnic Tamil from Delft, which is an island off the coast of Jaffna. The claimant never supported the LTTE. However, in 2018, he began supporting the United Tamil Party and refused to support the Eelam People’s Democratic Party (EPDP). As a result, the EPDP began accusing the claimant of being a member of the LTTE.
  • The claimant was threatened and questioned numerous times. His movements were monitored, including his attendance at remembrance events, which resulted in him being accused of meeting with LTTE associates whenever he travelled to Vanni to visit his family. The claimant’s cousin was also a supporter of the United Tamil Party and shared with the claimant that he was being threatened by the EPDP.
  • In May 2019, the claimant was attacked while walking home late at night. And a few days after that, his cousin was murdered. The claimant believes that both attacks were perpetrated by the EPDP. As a result, the claimant decided to leave Sri Lanka. He travelled to South America in XXXX 2019, and made his way to Canada where he made a claim for protection.

Identity

  • The claimant’s identity as a national of Sri Lanka is established by the sworn statement in his BOC form[iii] and the certified copy of his Sri Lanka passport in evidence,[iv] as well as the numerous identity documents submitted in support of his claim.[v]    

Credibility

  • There is a presumption that sworn testimony is true unless there is sufficient reason to doubt its truthfulness. In this case, I found the claimant to be a credible witness. His testimony was consistent and forthright and was supported by the documentary evidence before me. The claimant explained that he had not been political prior to 2018; however, he decided to support the United Tamil Party because they promised freedom and support for the Tamil people after the war. According to the claimant, he refused to support the EPDP, who works with the army and has a very strong hold of Delft.
  • I find it credible that the claimant would refuse to support the EPDP and anyone associated with the Sri Lankan government, given that he witnessed firsthand the treatment of Tamils by Sri Lankan authorities during the war. Thus, I find it is credible that his experiences led him to support the United Tamil Party which purports to help the Tamil people. I also find it credible that the Sri Lankan government would become suspicious of the claimant’s activities since he refused to support the EPDP and instead, gave his support to the United Tamil Party.
  • The claimant alleges that his cousin was killed by the EPDP and that he was assaulted by the EPDP. Although he does not have any confirmation that the EPDP were involved, he testified that he believes it was them due to the many threats received by both the claimant, and his cousin. I find it credible that the claimant fears the EPDP to the point of leaving Sri Lanka given that his cousin was also part of the United Tamil Party, he had also been threatened, and as per the evidence before me, the United Tamil Party also believes that the Sri Lankan government are responsible for the cousin’s death.[vi] Therefore, I find it credible that the claimant would flee Sri Lanka after he was attacked, and his cousin was murdered.
  • I have also reviewed the documentary evidence provided in this case, and I find that it serves to corroborates the claimant’s allegations. I have before me evidence of the claimant’s support for the United Tamil Party, letters of support, and evidence of his cousin’s death.[vii]
  • Based on the totality of the evidence before me, I accept the claimants’ allegations as credible.

Country Conditions

  1.  In 2019, Gotabaya Tajapaksa was elected in 2019. He was a former powerful war-time secretary of defense who was a key figure in the war against the LTTE. It is alleged that war crimes and crimes against humanity were committed by state forces under his control.[viii]  The new president’s strategy has been to militarize Sri Lanka to suppress any dissent.[ix] Due to the COVID-19 outbreak, the presence of security forces at checkpoints has increased and has been particularly severe in the Tamil Northern Province.[x] The evidence before me indicates that incidents of repression are on the rise and the government is using the pandemic to curtail freedom of expression by arresting critics.[xi]
  2. The evidence pertaining to the treatment of Tamils indicates that they are the most underprivileged ethnic group in Sri Lanka; they remain second-class citizens who continue to face harassment, mistreatment and human rights abuses.[xii] The United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur indicated that he received frequent reports of intimidation and surveillance, particularly concerning memorial services.[xiii] This is consistent with the claimant’s testimony that he was monitored when he attended memorial services in Vanni. The authorities are also reported to use extrajudicial executions, forced disappearances, custodial rape and torture which disproportionately impacts Tamils.[xiv]
  3. The extent of monitoring is reported to depend on one’s ongoing involvement with politically sensitive issues, including protests related to disappeared persons and links to Tamil diaspora.[xv] As mentioned, the claimant attended memorial services in 2017, 2018, and 2019. Furthermore, three of his siblings have left Sri Lanka, one of whom is residing in Canada. Therefore, it is credible that Sri Lankan authorities perceive his connection to his siblings as a connection to Tamil diaspora.
  4. Given the current government’s involvement in the war and the alleged crimes committed against the Tamils by the president, I find it credible that the current Sri Lankan government continues to target Tamils, particularly those it perceives as connected to the LTTE.
  5. Based on the evidence before me, I find that there is sufficient credible and trustworthy evidence to establish that the claimant has an objective basis for this subjective fear. As such, I find that he has a well-founded fear of persecution in Sri Lanka.

State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative

  1. There is a presumption that countries can protect their citizens. The claimant bears the burden of rebutting that presumption. However, in this case, the agent of persecution the claimant fears is the government of Sri Lanka; therefore, it would not be reasonable for him to seek the protection of that state. As such, I find that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection as there is clear and convincing evidence before me that it would be unreasonable for him to seek the protection of the Sri Lankan government, given that the state is the agent of persecution.
  2. In terms of an Internal Flight Alternative (IFA), the authorities are in control of the entire territory. Furthermore, they have numerous checkpoints, which have increased in numbers due to the COVID-19 outbreak.[xvi] Given the government’s control over the entire state, I do not find that a viable IFA is available in this case.

CONCLUSION

  • For the above-mentioned reasons, I find the claimant is a Convention refugee, as such, his claim for protection is accepted.

[i] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.

[ii] Exhibit 2.

[iii] Exhibit 2.

[iv] Exhibit 1.

[v] Exhibit 4.

[vi] Exhibit 4.

[vii] Exhibit 4.

[viii] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP), Sri Lanka, September 20, 2020, Item 2.15.

[ix] Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.15.

[x] Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.19.

[xi] Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.19.

[xii] Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 13.1, Response to Information Request (RIR) LKA200298.E.

[xiii] Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 13.1, RIR LKA200298.E.

[xiv] Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 13.1, RIR LKA200298.E.

[xv] Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 13.1, RIR LKA200298.E.

[xvi] Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 13.1, RIR LKA200298.E.

Categories
All Countries Iran

2021 RLLR 102

Citation: 2021 RLLR 102
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 31, 2021
Panel: Deborah Coyne
Counsel for the Claimant(s): N/A
Country: Iran
RPD Number: TC1-13525
Associated RPD Number(s): TC1-13539 / TC1-13540
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: These are the reasons for the decision in the claims of XXXX XXXX, the principal claimant, her daughter XXXX XXXX XXXX the associate claimant and her son XXXX XXXX, the associate claimant. They claim to be citizens of Iran and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

ALLEGATIONS

[2]       The allegations are fully set out in the claimants Basis of Claim forms as amended. The claimants allege they face a serious possibility of persecution because of their imputed political opinion, as opponents of the regime and their refusal to comply with certain directives enforced by the Iranian authorities.

DECISION

[3]       The Panel finds that the claimants face a serious possibility of persecution because of their anti-regime activities and their imputed political opinion as opponents of the Iranian regime. They are, therefore, Convention refugees under Section 96 of IRPA.

Identity

[4]       On a balance of probabilities, the claimants have established they are citizens of Iran based on copies of the passports in Exhibit 1.

[5]       Based on the testimony today and the documents on the file, including the three (3) claimants’ Basis of Claim narrative, the Panel has noted no serious credibility issues. On a balance of probabilities, the Panel finds the following allegations to be true. The principal claimant is an accomplished XXXX XXXX in Iran. As an educated professional woman, she has endured many conflicts with the conservative theocratic regime. She has defended women’s rights in many ways and has been harassed by Islamic authorities in her office and at the university where she was an associate professor. Among other things, her and her husband have also had to defend their two (2) children from the morality police, who have harassed and threatened them over the years, whenever they refused to comply with strict Islamic rules and regulations such as those concerning the dress code.

[6]       In or about May 2019, in particular, the principal claimant was detained, interrogated for hours, insulted and threatened and accused of encouraging women of being anti-regime and against Islam. And there was also another episode where she was helping out some protesters in 2019, during the anti-gas protest, or anti-regime protest relating to arising gas prices.

[7]       The principal claimant and her husband had sent both the associate claimants to Canada to study, to ensure their freedom from the deportations of the Iranian authorities. After the principal claimant’s ordeal, they decided to visit the children in Canada. The principal claimant stay from XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX2019, and then returned. After Iranian security shot down innocent civilians in a Ukrainian flight from Tehran in January 2020, in the wake of serious public protest, the children in Canada lost communication with their parents and were very concerned. The principal claimant feared even more for her security as sh continued to assist women in her office. And when she was denied a raise to which she was entitled at the university because of her activism and perceived anti-regime position, she decided it was no longer safe for her to stay in Iran. She returned to Canada in XXXX 2020 and stayed. Her husband returned to Tehran—he came back as well with her—and then returned to Tehran in XXXX 2020, without her and informed her after that the Iranian authorities raided her office and have issues two (2) summons (inaudible) appear in court and they continue to seek her out.

[8]       Both associate claimants submitted separate narratives outlining the dangers that they and their mother face if they return to Iran and continue to oppose the subjugation of women and the violation of their rights by the authorities. All three (3) claimants decided that their lives are now at risk should they return to Iran and submitted their claims for refugee protection in August 2020.

[9]       The Panel finds that the evidence with respect to the claimants’ imputed anti-regime opinion was internally consistent and plausible. There were no contradictions or omissions that go to the core of the claim. The allegations were supported by personal documents in Exhibit 5 and that the Panel finds credible. In addition to education and employment documents for the principal claimant, Exhibit 5 includes a support letter from the principal claimant’s husband, explaining in detail the reason why it is no longer safe for his wife and children to return to Iran. The Panel accepts the evidence as establishing, on a balance of probabilities, the claimants’ subjective fear of persecution because of their imputed anti-regime political opinion.

[10]     Okay, so now, the Panel is going to turn to the objective basis and the situation in Iran. The Panel examined the objective country specific documents in the April 16, 2021, National Documentation Package for Iran. The objective evidence supports the claimants’ subjective fear of persecution because of their imputed anti-regime political opinion. The US Department of State 2020 Human Rights Report, that is item 2.1, notes that the Iranian regime engages in political motivated violence and repression to suppress dissent in political opinions, subject people to arbitrary arrest and detention as well as unfair judicial processes.

[11]     And then, just paraphrasing—Significant human rights issues include executions for crimes not meeting the international legal standard of most serious crimes and without fair trials of individuals, including juvenile offenders, numerous reports of unlawful or arbitrary killings, forced disappearance and torture by government agents, as well as a systematic use of arbitrary detention and imprisonment, harsh and life-threatening prison conditions, hundreds of political prisoners, unlawful interference with privacy, significant problems with the indigence of the judiciary, particularly the revolutionary courts, severe restrictions on free expression, the press and the internet, including violence, threats of violence and unjustified arrest and prosecutions against journalists, censorship, etcetera, etcetera. And this is all just a quote from Item 2.1 of the NDP.

[12]     Okay, in other parts of Item 2.1, it gives more details about how the authorities commonly use arbitrary arrest to impede anti-regime activities, including by conducting mass arrest of people in the vicinity of any government activities, etcetera. This is found at page 15. Authorities held some detainees at times incommunicado, for prolonged periods without charge or trial and frequently denied them contact with family or to any access to legal representation. There is lots to say in Item 2.1 about political prisoners and detainees. Impunity remained a problem within all security forces. Human rights groups frequently accuse regular and paramilitary security forces such as the Basij, in committing numerous human rights abuses, including acts of violence against protesters and participants in public demonstrations. I think that is—The Panel thinks that is a good enough summary of the dangers which the claimants have already experienced in opposing the regime in Iran.

[13]     Okay, the Panel finds that the objective country documentation for Iran establishes that the claimants’ subjective fear of persecution because of their imputed anti-regime activity, is well-founded.

Briefly, Turning to State Protection

[14]     As the agent of persecution in the government of Iran, the Panel finds it objectively unreasonable for the claimants to seek the protection of the Iranian state and the Panel finds that claimants have rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence.

Internal Flight Alternative

[15]     The Panel also finds that the objective evidence establishes that the authorities in Iran operate similarly throughout Iran, and therefore there is no viable internal flight alternative available to the claimants.

IN CONCLUSION

[16]     The Panel finds that the claimants face a serious possibility of persecution because of their anti-regime activities and imputed political opinion as opponents of the Iranian regime. They are therefore, Convention refugees under Section 96 of the IRPA, and their claims are accepted.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries Sudan

2021 RLLR 101

Citation: 2021 RLLR 101
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 1, 2021
Panel: Sarah Acker
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Stéphanie Valois
Country: Sudan
RPD Number: TC1-08877
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: We are back on the record. The time is 11:47 a.m. This is the decision for the following claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, who claims to be a citizen of Sudan and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The file number is TC1-08877.

[2]       Mr. XXXX, I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in this case, and I’m ready to render my decision orally. I find that you are a Convention refugee on the grounds of your imputed anti-government political opinion pursuant to s. 96 of the IRPA.

[3]       The details of your claim are set out in your Basis of Claim form and are supplemented by your testimony at today’s hearing. I should add that the details of your claim are also found in the amendments to your Basis of Claim form. In summary, you fear persecution in Sudan at the hands of the Sudanese coup d’état leaders and the Sudanese security forces due to your imputed political opinion. You also allege that there is no state protection or internal flight alternative available to you in Sudan.

[4]       Your country of reference and personal identity as a citizen of Sudan has been established on a balance of probabilities by your testimony and the following supporting document filed in Exhibit 1, namely a certified true copy of your Sudanese passport that was submitted.

[5]       I find there is a nexus between what you fear in Sudan and one of the five grounds enumerated in s. 96 of the IRPA. Therefore, your claim is assessed under s. 96 of the IRPA and there is no need to conduct a s. 97(1) analysis.

[6]       In terms of your general credibility, I found you to be a credible witness with regard to the material issues in your claim. There were no significant inconsistencies or omissions between your Basis of Claim forms, your testimony, and the other evidence before me. You testified in a spontaneous, detailed manner. I therefore believe what you have alleged in support of your claim.

[7]       You testified today from 2010 to 2019 you lived outside of Sudan: first in India to attend university on a student visa, and then in the United Arab Emirates on a work permit that ended with the termination of your employment in 2019. Your university certificate and Indian student visa can be found in Exhibit 11 at pages 6 through 8. Your UAE E visa is found at Exhibit 11 at page 9. When I asked you why you did not live in Sudan after completing your studies abroad, you explained that your mother feared for your life if you returned to Sudan because your father and brothers were both targeted by the Sudanese regime because of their political opinions. You heeded her advice and stayed out of the country. I therefore find on a balance of probabilities you lived outside of Sudan from 2009 through 2019 as a non-permanent resident in India and the United Arab Emirates because you feared being targeted by the Sudanese authorities if you returned to Sudan and lived there.

[8]       You explained that while living outside of Sudan, you only returned to Sudan a handful of times, mostly to look after your mother who was suffering from cancer. This information aligns with the stamps in your passport. You explained that in XXXX of 2017 you were in Sudan to comfort your mother on her deathbed. Her dying wish was that you try to find your two brothers who had been arrested while protesting the Al-Bashir regime in 2013 and had not been seen or heard from since that time. You submitted a letter from your neighbours in Sudan with accompanying identity documents that attest to your brothers’ arrest in 2013 while protesting. This letter is found in Exhibit 11 at page 20. The details of the letter correspond to the details in your Basis of Claim form and the testimony that you provided concerning your brothers’ disappearance. I therefore find this evidence credible. After your mother’s passing on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017 — and you provided her death certificate at Exhibit 11, pages 15 through 16 — you saw to honour your mother’s wish and you started looking for your brothers at different prisons and NISS centres in Sudan. Your testimony explained that on 26th of August 2017 you attended the NISS compound in the Shendi district in search of your brothers. When the NISS official said your brothers were not there and to stop looking for them, you accused the NISS of killing your brothers as they had killed your father who had been active in a Sudanese opposition party in the early 2000s. As a result, you were detained at the station for three days, physically assaulted, and interrogated about your alleged political activities against the Sudanese government and alleged affiliations with Darfuri movements because you are an ethnic Darfuri. Upon your release, you were made to sign empty documents. NISS officials told you to leave Sudan and that if you ever returned, they would fill in the documents with alleged offences and arrest you. You left Sudan a few days later and you never returned. This is confirmed by the stamps in your passport.

[9]       Your submitted evidence from your friend, XXXX (ph), who had accompanied you on your search for your brothers after your mother passed away and who picked you up from the NISS office in Shendi upon your release from detention. You explained when and how you obtain XXXX letter of support, and its accompanied by an identity document. The letter confirms the details in your BOC narrative and your testimony. I therefore find this letter credible. It can be found at Exhibit 12. The testimony about your detention, how it occurred, when and why it occurred, and what happened during it, all aligned with the details in your BOC narrative. You testified in a spontaneous, clear, and direct manner. I therefore find on a balance of probabilities you were detained by the NISS in August of 2017 while searching for your brothers who were arrested in 2013, that you were interrogated about suspected political affiliations against the Sudanese government, that you were threatened and instructed to leave the country.

[10]     You testified that you avoided involvement in politics in Sudan because you feared the regime’s brutality if you spoke out. You explained that upon arriving in Canada in XXXX of 2019, you felt safe to begin raising your voice against the atrocities committed by the current head of the Sudanese military government, General Al-Burhan and General Hemetti. You have attended rallies in Montreal and Hamilton since arriving here. You post videos on your Facebook profile about protests against the Sudanese regime, including those that took place since the coup d’état of October 25th, 2021, in Sudan. You showed me your Facebook account during the hearing and its contents confirm your testimony. You also submitted photographs of yourself attending protests against the Sudanese regime in Montreal and Hamilton in 2019 and 2021. The photos from these protests are found in Exhibit 11, pages 24 through 27. I therefore find on a balance of probabilities that since arriving in Canada, you have felt safe enough to actively voice your opposition to the Sudanese leadership and its security services as you allege.

[11]     I asked you whether you would continue to speak out against the Sudanese government if you return to Sudan. You testified that you would not because you fear the consequences of voicing your political opinions, especially given the physical and psychological injuries you sustained at the hands of the Sudanese authorities during your detention in August of 2017. I therefore find on a balance of probabilities that in addition to the Sudanese regime perceiving you to be a political opponent, you hold actual political opinions that opposed the current Sudanese regime.

[12]     I noticed that at the time you left the UAE you had a valid United States visitors visa. I asked you why you did not choose to make it an asylum claim in the United States and instead use that US visa in order to travel from the United States immediately to Canada. You explained that you were aware of the former Trump administration’s attitude towards Sudanese asylum seekers at the time and you were worried you would not have a fair asylum hearing. I find this explanation reasonable. I also asked you why you did not seek asylum in Ireland or other parts of Europe, as your passport shows you had valid visas for those locations at the time that you left the United Arab Emirates for Canada. You explained that having done research online, you felt Canada would be the safest option for you, specifically given your profile as a person of colour. I accept that this is your genuine belief and the reason why you came to Canada instead of seeking refuge elsewhere.

[13]     I therefore find on a balance of probabilities that you have a subjective fear of persecution in Sudan because of your real and perceived political opinions. As a result, and as mentioned previously, this claim is being assessed under s. 96 of the IRPA, and I find that you have established a nexus to a Convention ground.

[14]     In addition to your credible testimony and the other evidence before me today, the objective evidence in this case supports your claim. With respect to your detention by the Sudanese security forces in August of 2017, the documentary evidence in the National Documentation Package, the NDP, is quite clear that the Sudanese authorities under the previous Al-Bashir government targeted real and perceived critics of the regime. Security forces detained such critics, often keeping them for days before releasing them without charge. Many were held even longer, facing maltreatment and torture during their detention. This is mentioned in NDP item 1.4 among other items in the NDP. NDP 1.11 also notes the risk you faced as a perceived political critic under the Al-Bashir regime given your identity as a Darfuri. In December of 2018 the regime still described the protests in Sudan as a plot engineered by Darfur rebels backed by the West. In a January 2019 report on “The Risk on Return for Darfuris in Sudan,” the source states that Darfuris were being used as scapegoats and accused of instigating the uprising on instructions from foreign agents. I therefore find on a balance of probabilities that your subjective fear or persecution in Sudan at the time you left the country had an objective basis and was well-founded.

[15]     However, my risk assessment must be a forward-looking one, so I now turn to the evidence of whether the risk you faced in August 2017 in Sudan is indeed ongoing and forward-looking. In April of 2019 President Omar Al-Bashir was removed from office after decades of authoritarian rule in Sudan and replaced by a military council. Shortly after that, following negotiations between military leaders like Generals Al-Burhan and Hemetti and opposition groups, a transitional government led by a sovereign council of military and civilian members replaced the military council in August 2019. From that time until October of this year, 2021, positive changes were made with respect to human rights in Sudan, including opening space for political opposition and voices critical of the Al-Bashir regime and the improvement of other rights like women’s rights. However, on October 25th, 2021, the military wing of the civilian-led transitional government commandeered by General Al-Burhan staged a coup d’état in Sudan. The Sudanese army arrested key government officials, including President Minister Hamdok. When Sudanese civilians protested the coup, Sudanese military forces, including General Hemetti’s Rapid Security Forces, used excessive and lethal force against peaceful protesters. The individuals who held leadership roles in Sudan state security forces under Al-Bashir, including those who controlled state security forces at the time of your arrest and detention in August 2017, now once again hold power in Sudan. This leads me to find on a balance of probabilities that the positive steps taken by the Sudanese civilian-led transitional government regarding, among other issues, treatment of real or perceived regime critics are not durable. I therefore find on a balance of probabilities that your subjective fear of persecution in Sudan has an objective basis, is well-founded, and is forward-looking.

[16]     While states are presumed to be capable of protecting their nationals, it’s open to a claimant to rebut the presumption of protection with clear and convincing evidence. In this case, the agent of persecution is the state because the forward-facing persecution you would face in Sudan is at the hands of state authorities. Based on your personal circumstances as well as the objective country documentation, I find on a balance of probabilities that you have rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence. Given that the state is the agent of persecution and there was no objective evidence that shows the state does not have control over the entire country of Sudan, I find on a balance of probabilities that you would face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Sudan, and therefore a viable internal flight alternative does not exist for you.

[17]     Having considered your testimony, the documentary evidence presented, and the objective evidence before me, I find there is a serious possibility that you would face persecution in Sudan at hands of the Sudanese security forces if you return there. For the aforementioned reasons, I conclude that you are a Convention refugee for pursuant to s. 96 of the IRPA, and I accept your claim. This concludes my reasons for decision.

——————–REASONS CONCLUDED ——————–

Categories
All Countries Hungary

2021 RLLR 100

Citation: 2021 RLLR 100
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 4, 2021
Panel: Gregory Israelstam
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Amedeo Clivio
Country: Hungary
RPD Number: TC1-05181
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: It is 3:29 p.m. And I am about to deliver my decision and reasons for the decision in the claim for protection made by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX is not present. He has been informed of the decision.

[2]       XXXX XXXX XXXX, the claimant, seeks protection pursuant to s. 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The claimant is a citizen of Hungary.

[3]       In coming to my decision, I’ve taken into account specific cultural and social circumstances of the claimant as well as the chairperson’s sexual orientation and gender identity and expression guidelines. The allegations of this claim are found in the claimant’s Basis of Claim form and his testimony.

[4]       The claimant alleges the following. The claimant fears persecution on the basis of race as well as on the basis of membership in a particular social group, in this case sexual orientation, at the hands of society in general in Hungary. The claimant alleges that if he returns to Hungary, he would be subject to discrimination, harassment, and violence as a result of his Roma ethnicity. He also alleges that he would be subject to discrimination, harassment, violence, and the ostracization of his community because he’s a gay man.

[5]       At the outset of the hearing, I identified credibility as a primary issue for the hearing to focus on. I also identified the availability of state protection as an issue to be addressed.

[6]       With respect to identity, on the file is a certified copy of the claimant’s passport from Hungary. Through this document and his testimony, the claimant has established his personal identity and his citizenship of Hungary. The claimant has also submitted into evidence a certification of Roma ethnicity from the Toronto Roma Community Centre, and therefore I find the claimant has established his ethnic identity as a person of Roma origin.

[7]       With respect to credibility, a claimant testifying under oath or affirmation is presumed to be telling the truth unless there are valid reasons to reject the testimony. In this case, I find no such valid reason to disbelieve the claimant’s testimony. The claimant’s answers to the questions put to him at the hearing were forthright and spontaneous despite some nervous on the part of the claimant. The claimant’s testimony was consistent with his Basis of Claim form. And the harassment and discrimination described by the claimant are consistent with reports found in the National Documentation Package for Hungary. There were no material inconsistencies in the claimant’s testimony. And overall, I find the claimant’s testimony to be credible and trustworthy. The claimant testified that as a Roma he has discriminate — experienced discrimination in education, in the provision of housing, in the provision of other public services, and in employment. The claimant further testified that he’s been a victim of threats and violence in public at the hands of anti-Roma gangs. I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has experienced discrimination and harassment as a result of his Roma ethnicity in Hungary. I further find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has faced violence or the threat of violence in Hungary at the hands of anti-Roma groups. Although discrimination by itself need not constitute persecution, pervasive discrimination when coupled with the threat of violence does equate to persecution in the case of the claimant.

[8]       The claimant testified that he became aware of his sexual orientation when he was about 17 years old. He did not discuss this with his family as the attitudes towards homosexuality in the traditional Roma community may be negative. The claimant testified that he told his family about his sexual orientation shortly before he left for Canada. His father’s negative reaction to this discovery led to the breakup of the claimant’s parents’ marriage and was also the impetus for the claimant to decide he could no longer live in Hungary. As noted, I found the claimant overall to be credible and trustworthy.

[9]       As part of the evidence submitted by the claimant, his mother and a friend have both provided statements that confirmed the claimant’s sexual orientation. In light of my findings on credibility and taking into consideration the supporting evidence, I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant is a gay man. I further find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has faced exclusion from his ethnic community and family as a result of his sexual orientation.

[10]     The claimant testified that that if he — he fears that if he were to return to Hungary, he will continue to face the same persecution as he has in the past. I’m satisfied that the claimant has a genuine fear of persecution in the form of harassment, discrimination, and violence on the ground of his Roma ethnicity and his status as a gay man should he return to Hungary.

[11]     Having found the claimant to have a fear of persecution, I turn to the question of whether this fear has an objective basis. Reports from the National Documentation Package for Hungary confirm that persecution and harassment continue for the Roma population of Hungary. I find the claimant’s fear of persecution on the basis of his ethnicity has an objective basis. Reports from the National Documentation Package for Hungary also note that while Hungary has relatively liberal laws concerning sexual minorities, Hungary is moving to an increasingly hostile atmosphere towards the LGBTQ population. Hate speech against this community is increasing as is violence. Both the media and the government are becoming increasingly hostile towards sexual minorities. On May 15th, 2019, the speaker of parliament in Hungary noted publicly that morally there is no difference between the behaviour of the pedophile and the behaviour and proponents of same sex marriage. I find that the claimant’s fear of persecution on the basis of sexual orientation has an objective basis.

[12]     With respect to whether the claimant has an internal flight alternative, country condition reports confirm that persecution against the Roma population of the sort described by the claimant is widespread throughout Hungary and is in many instances tacitly approved of by authorities. In addition, as noted above, the increase in hostility towards sexual minorities in Hungary is also pervasive throughout Hungarian society. I find that the claimant would not be able to escape persecution on the grounds of race or sexual orientation in any place within Hungary.

[13]     With respect to state protection, there is a presumption that the state is able to protect its nationals. Such a presumption can only be displaced on clear and convincing evidence of the state’s inability to protect its citizens. Such protection need not be perfect. Country condition reports for Hungary do indicate that the government has expressed a willingness to provide protection to all citizens. However, reports also suggest that this willingness has not necessarily translated into adequate protection. Reports say the hardening of anti-Roma attitudes in both the general population and state authorities in Hungary, corresponding to an increase in nationalist sentiment.

[14]     In many instances, authorities are unable or unwilling to protect Roma from extremist violence. The claimant’s own testimony is that he did contact the police about attacks and threats. The claimant testified that at times the police were dismissive, but that even when they were not, no arrests or further investigations were made. The claimant’s experience confirms — conforms to descriptions found in the National Documentation Package. Crimes against Roma may be reported, but ignored or dismissed without investigation. I find that given the claimant’s Roma ethnicity and sexual orientation, the claimant has established that in his case there is clear and convincing evidence that the state is unable or unwilling to protect him against persecution.

[15]     Based on the evidence before me and the testimony of the claimant, I conclude the claimant has established a serious possibility of persecution on the Convention ground of race as well as the Convention ground of membership in a particular social group, in this case sexual orientation, if he were to return to Hungary. The claimant is therefore a Convention refugee pursuant to s. 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. His claim for protection is accepted. That concludes my reasons.

——————–REASONS CONCLUDED ——————–

Categories
All Countries Ethiopia

2021 RLLR 99

Citation: 2021 RLLR 99
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 10, 2021
Panel: Zorana Dimitrijevic
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Paul Vandervennen
Country: Ethiopia
RPD Number: TC1-04234
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: And this is an oral decision in the claim for refugee protection put forth pursuant to Sections 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in relation to the claim for XXXX XXXX XXXX file number TC1-04234.

[2]       The panel notes that the claimant indicates that he’s a citizen of Ethiopia.

[3]       The details of the claimant’s allegations are found in the Basis of Claim Form Narrative at Exhibit 2, and amendment to the Basis of Claim Form that can be found at Exhibit 6.

[4]       In summary, the claimant alleges a fear of persecution in Ethiopia at the hands of the government due to his Tigray ethnicity and imputed anti-government political opinion, due to his father’s political activism and work.

[5]       The claimant alleges that there is no State protection for him or an internal flight alternative anywhere in Ethiopia.

[6]       The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to Section 96 of the Act for the following reasons. The panel finds that there is a link between what the claimant fears and two of the five enumerated Convention grounds because of the claimant’s ethnicity as a Tigrayan and his imputed political opinion. Consequently, his claim is assessed under Section 96 of the Act.

[7]       The panel finds that, on a balance of probability, the claimant’s national and personal identity as a citizen of Ethiopia has been established by his testimony, and a copy of his Ethiopian passport and (inaudible), as well as Global Case Management System notes which can be found … all which can be found in Exhibit 1.

[8]       The panel also finds that, on a balance of probability, the claimant’s ethnicity as a Tigrayan has been established by his testimony, and a copy of his kebele card which can be found at Exhibit 5.

[9]       With respect to credibility, the panel finds that the claimant was a credible witness in relation to the central issues with his claim.

[10]     The claimant testified in a direct and sincere manner, and did not try to embellish his claim. There were no omissions, inconsistencies, or contradictions between his statements provided in the Basis of Claim Form, amendment to the Basis of Claim Form, and accompanying forms, and his testimony at the hearing in relation to the central allegations of his claim.

[11]     The claimant testified that he and his family has been exposed to political violence in Ethiopia from his early youth due to his father’s (inaudible) engagement in the Coalition for Unity and Democracy and subsequently in the Arena for Sovereignty Democracy or the Arena Tigray Party.

[12]     The claimant’s parents are Tigrayan and Amharic. His father’s ethnicity’s Tigrayan and his mother’s ethnicity’s Amharic.

[13]     The claimant’s ethnicity has been determined according to his father’s ethnicity because in Ethiopia a child is supposedly the (inaudible) background of his or her father.

[14]     The claimant’s father was arrested on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2020, (inaudible) of (inaudible) to the new Prime Minister as the coordinator of the Arena Tigray Party. Following his arrest, the claimant and his mother were threatened by the Oromo youth group Qeerroo, and subsequently by the police following the claimant’s attempts to complain to the police about the threats he and his father received.

[15]     The claimant was physically attacked by the members of Qeerroo group in December 2020. His attempts to complain to police … to complain to the police the claimant was verbally threatened to live in harmony with the Oromo, and told that Tigrayans are the enemy of the State.

[16]     Out of fear from Qeerroo and the police, the claimant relocated to his uncle in another part of Addis Ababa, and applied for Canadian student visa.

[17]     The claimant left Ethiopia with the help of his uncle who organized the claimant’s departure with the help of his friend Immigration officer at the airport. The claimant arrived to Canada XXXX XXXX XXXX2021.

[18]     The panel finds the claimant to be credible, on a balance of probabilities, on providing details about the series of events he and his family suffered in Ethiopia, and the reasons why he left Ethiopia and applied for refugee protection in Canada. The panel assigns significant weight to this part of the claimant’s testimony.

[19]     The panel also notes that the claimant provided letters of support from his mother and from his uncle, as well as from Tigrayan Association in Toronto. The letters can be found at Exhibit 5.

[20]     The claimant also provided his education credentials, and photographs of his participation in demonstrations in Canada, both of which can be also found at Exhibit 5.

[21]     The claimant testified that he discovered the Tigrayan Association in Toronto soon after his arrival in Canada in XXXX 2021, from his friend.

[22]     The claimant provided explanation for the photographs he provided to the panel regarding his attendance at the protest in July this year in Toronto in Canada that were organized against the Ethiopian … Ethiopian Government on account of the ongoing armed conflict in Ethiopia between the State Government of Tigray and the Federal Government.

[23]     After reviewing the letters and all the other documents submitted into evidence, the panel finds them to be genuine and reliable, on a balance of probabilities.

[24]     The panel further finds, after reviewing the letters from the claimant’s mother and his uncle, that they provide … provide further information on the events that unfolded following the claimant’s departure from Ethiopia. Stating that the claimant’s father is still in prison, and that his two siblings were forced to go into hiding. The panel assigns the documents full weight in assessing the claimant’s credibility as it relates to his allegations of persecution in … in Ethiopia, and of … his activities in Canada.

[25]     The panel also questioned the claimant on his reluctance to claim refugee protection when arriving to Canada in XXXX 2021, as provided in the port of entry notes from XXXX XXXX XXXX 2021, when he did not seek asylum in the border and did so only following the decision of the border officers not to allow him entry to Canada.

[26]     The claimant explained that his uncle advised him not to seek asylum before finding a lawyer, and that he was following his uncle’s advice.

[27]     The panel accepts the claimant’s explanation as reasonable and finds it to be credible, on a balance of probabilities. The panel further finds that the claimant’s reluctance to claim refugee protection before getting (inaudible) from the Canadian border officials does not impugn his credibility.

[28]     The panel finds that the claimant faces a forward-looking risk if he returns to Ethiopia based on his ethnicity and imputed political opinion. The panel is therefore satisfied that the claimant has established his subjective fear.

[29]     The panel further finds that the claimant’s fear of being deported to Ethiopia in the present circumstances is a fear that is well-founded in the objective documents.

[30]     According to sources from the National Documentation Package for Ethiopia, hereinafter the NDP or the package, which can be found at Exhibit 3, there’s, has been an escalating ethnic violence since the new Prime Minister and his appointment in 2018.

[31]     According to Item 1.5 of the NDP the security situation has deteriorated in parts of the country, and interethnic clashes have increased significantly, particularly in among other Amhara Tigray State borders. The same item provides information that anti-Tigrayan sentiment has become more overt since 2018, and hate speech against ordinary Tigrayans has increased in this time.

[32]     Counsel for the claimant provided objective evidence on the current situation in Ethiopia, and other articles that provide information on ethic profiling, arbitrary arrest, indefinite detention, and enforced disappearances of individuals of Tigrayan ethnicity, as well as mass detention of the ethnic Tigrayans during the ongoing armed conflict.

[33]     All of the new wave of mass detention in Ethiopia has not been acknowledged by State officials. The source also provides information that this practice is ongoing, and that … that hate campaign against Tigrayans has worsened. Providing further information on tens of thousand detained individuals of Tigrayan ethnicity, following the recapture of (inaudible) by forces from the Tigray People’s Liberation Front.

[34]     The source on page 10 of Exhibit 7 provides information that arbitrary arrest also occurred in Addis Ababa, where the panel notes the claimant is from, and those arrested are held in detention without due process.

[35]     According to the Amnesty International those detained suffered torture and the general ill-treatment in detention, while forced disappearances, according to the source that can be found on page 13 in Exhibit 7, have become a common practice in the last six months.

[36]     The source reports Tigrayans have been stopped on the streets of Addis Ababa and arrested on the spot after the security forces inspect their identification documents. Those arrested and detained are taken to unidentified locations.

[37]     According to Human Rights Watch transferred of detainees has been organized by the Intelligence Services, the police, and the military. Family members of those detained are threatened and intimidated by the security forces.

[38]     The NDP also corroborates claimant’s allegations about … by providing information on organized movement of young ethnic Oromo known as Qeerroo.

[39]     According to Item 1.8 Qeerroo’s presence in Addis Ababa is reflected in its intimidation of ethnic Amhara’s and other ethnicities, and the security forces were deemed as inefficient in curbing the violence caused by this organization.

[40]     Item 1.23 of the package describes Qeerroo as partly responsible for the Prime Minister and his appointment in 2018. (Inaudible) decree organization is not agreed on, and the Qeerroo are not in a legal opposition movement. The sources report of numerous (inaudible) activities of this group and orchestrated attacks on other non-Oromo ethnic groups in Ethiopia.

[41]     Item 4.5 of the NDP provides information that the (inaudible) side of the Qeerroo describes it as an Oromo group that struggle for freedom through democracy and self-determination rights. The central aim of the Oromo people and the Qeerroo struggle is described as the one of (inaudible) the nation and/or country that guarantees freedom, democracy, equality, and fraternity among its people.

[42]     The source further provides that Qeerroo is symbolizing both the Oromo movement and its struggle for more political freedom and for greater ethnic representation in federal structures, as well as entire generation of (inaudible) assertive Ethiopian youth.

[43]     The source further states … states that as the Oromo movement has grown in confidence in recent years, so the role of Qeerroo in orchestrating unrest has increasingly drawn the attention of officials. As well the source further provides that many dispute characterization of the group as being a terrorist organization, few doubt the underground strength of the Qeerroo that has today.

[44]     The most recent response to information request from October 4th, 2021, which is called the Situation of Different Ethnic Groups in Addis Ababa, including access to housing, employment, education, and healthcare, particularly the Amhara, Oromo, Tigrayan, among other ethnicities, and their treatment by Oromo nationalist like Qeerroo that can be found at Item 13.12 of the NDP, provides information that Addis Ababa is a multi ethnic city with population of over five million inhabitants.

[45]     While the source states that Addis Ababa is a predominantly safe city for all ethnic groups and a dynamic place for opportunity for … of the … for an increase in (inaudible) or rural migrants, it also provides information that Addis Ababa is not safe for Tigrayans who have been targeted in Addis Ababa, due to their ethnicity and the war in the Tigrayan region.

[46]     The source further provides information that Tigrayans are ethnically profiled by the city and federal authorities in the … in Addis Ababa, as well as the Tigrayans are current the most targeted people or the only group that is persecution and harassed in Addis Ababa.

[47]     The source further states that general impression is that Tigrayans are losing their citizenship rights across Ethiopia.

[48]     The panel finds that the claimant’s fear of persecution because of his imputed anti-government political opinion and his ethnicity has an objective basis and is well-founded.

[49]     Despite initial positive changes and the climate of reform after Prime Minister Abiy (inaudible) power, more recently there has been regression in the human right abuses and ethnic violence.

[50]     The claimant’s imputed political profile and Tigrayan ethnicity make it more probable that he will face persecution if he returns to Ethiopia, especially in light of the recent escalating ethnic tension and the ongoing armed conflict.

[51]     Going to the issue of State protection. The panel finds adequate State protection would not be reasonably forthcoming in this particular case. That is because the claimant fears persecution at the … at the hands of State agents.

[52]     State agents are described as regularly detaining persons arbitrarily based on their ethnicity, and being responsible for grave human rights violations currently taking place in Ethiopia.

[53]     The panel also finds that the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution throughout … throughout Ethiopia because the consensus opinion in the documentary evidence is that the Ethiopian security forces operate with impunity throughout the country.

[54]     The panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that a viable internal flight alternative doe not exist for the claimant in Ethiopia.

[55]     In light of the foregoing, the panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee and accepts his claim.

[56]     And this matter is now concluded.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries Turkey

2021 RLLR 98

Citation: 2021 RLLR 98
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 19, 2021
Panel: Ayoni Shaibu
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Steven Blakey
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: TC1-04119
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

MEMBER:

Introduction

[1]       This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, file number TC1-04119. You are claiming to be a citizen of Turkey and seeking refugee protection pursuant to s. 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. In assessing this claim, I’ve considered the Chairperson’s guideline 4, Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution. This is to ensure fairness and equity in the hearing process and this decision. I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case, and I am ready to render a decision in this matter orally. The written decision will be sent to you shortly and may be amended for spelling and grammar purposes.

Determination

[2]       I find that you are a Convention refugee on the grounds of membership in a particular social group, namely women fearing gender-related persecution and violence in turkey. I find that the claimant — that you have established that you face a serious possibility of persecution upon your return to Turkey. And the reasons for the decision are as follows.

Allegations

[3]       You allege that you are a citizen of Turkey and of Kurdish ethnicity, that you have been in an abusive relationship with your ex-boyfriend, XXXX (ph), who is a supporter of the KP and the MHP, and you face persecution at his hands for your – for refusing to continue in the relationship with him. You also fear persecution from your family, in particular your father, for refusing to accede to a forced marriage to one of your cousins, XXXX (ph). You have stated that you cannot return to Turkey because if you do, you will be forced to marry your cousin, and if you refuse the marriage, you will be the victim of an honour killing by your father or your cousin’s family. In addition, you have also claimed that if you are not the victim of an honour killing, the abuse by your ex-boyfriend will continue. Fuller details of your claim are contained in your Basis of Claim form as amended. You have alleged that there is not state protection for you and no internal flight alternative.

Identity

[4]       Your personal identity as a citizen of Turkey has been established by your credible testimony and a copy of your Turkish passport. I find on the balance of probabilities that your identity and country of reference have been established.

Nexus

[5]       I find that there is a connection between the persecution you have suffered and your membership in a particular social group, namely women fearing gender-related violence. Therefore, I find that there a link between what you fear and one of the five enumerated Convention grounds in s. 96 of the Act. I have therefore assessed your claim under s. 96.

[6]       Regards to credibility, I have found you to be a credible witness, and therefore I believe what you have alleged in your oral testimony in your Basis of Claim form as amended. You have described in specific detail your testimony regarding the threats that you’ve received from XXXX and how he continues to stalk you online. Your testimony was coherent, consistent, spontaneous, and detailed. You described in detail his propensity for violence towards you and others, and his threats towards you are quite convincing, and there were no contributions. XXXX is a supporter of the ruling AKP or MHP party, comes from a wealthy Turkish family. He would use his connections in government and the police to find you anywhere in Turkey. These are corroborated by the letter from XXXX (ph) [inaudible] messages he sent you on social media. I attach full weight to these documents as I have no reason to doubt their authenticity, and they establish the allegations of persecution.

[7]       You have also described your father’s overbearing and controlling behaviour, how he made decisions about almost everything in your life. You stated that he dictated where you schooled, the courses you took, where you worked, and even where you lived. If he knew of your relationship with XXXX, he would not have approved. His decision to marry (sic) your cousin was communicated to you while in Turkey. You believe that your father or XXXX family will kill you as a matter of honour if you refuse to accede to their request. Your father has [inaudible] the cousin in the past and she [inaudible] submit to the first marriage. All of these details were in keeping with your Basis of Claim narrative.

[8]       You’ve also provided credible evidence — in support of your credible evidence — with reliable supporting documents, which are the letter from your mother, XXXX, and some other friends who are familiar with your personal circumstances, including the threats against you. These — I refer to Exhibit 5, 6, and 7. These documents corroborate the threats against you, they corroborate the allegations of persecution, I have no doubts to doubt — no reason to doubt the authenticity.

[9]       Based on my analysis above, I find on the balance of probability that you have established the allegations of persecution in Turkey.

Objective Documentary Evidence in the NDP

[10]     The objective evidence from the NDP for Turkey clearly supports your credible evidence. Violence against women is a serious widespread problem both in rural and urban areas of Turkey. According to research undertaken by the Ministry of Family and Social Policy, it’s six percent of women. So, they have stated that they have been subjected to physical or psychological violence by their parents or family. Approximately 70 percent of women reported they were physically assaulted by parents, family members, or neighbours. However, the actual figure may be even higher as violence against women is likely to be underreported for reasons including stigma, fear of reprisal, [inaudible] perpetrator, a lack of understanding on the part of women of their rights, language barriers, particularly for Kurdish women, and a lack of trust in law enforcement. Societal acceptance of domestic violence also contributes to underreporting.

[11]     In regard to honour killings, honour killings [inaudible] in the name of honour continues to take place. [inaudible] of the women killed by men in 2016 is 68 percent were killed by partners or former partners and [inaudible] by relatives. Family members sometimes pressure girls to [inaudible] preserve the family’s reputation. However, given that I have found that you are being forced to marry your own cousin, I find on a balance of probability that you would be the victim of an honour killing in Turkey. Given, therefore, I find that there is an objective basis for your fear of your family and ex-boyfriend as violence against women is a serious widespread problem in Turkey and is often perpetrated by family members.

[12]     I am persuaded that your father is as controlling as you allege and that you’re in a situation where you are going to be forced to marry someone other — or that you will be killed to preserve your family reputation. Accordingly, I find that your subjective fear of persecution on the grounds of your gender in Turkey is well-founded as it is supported by the objective evidence from the NDP. You have established on the balance of probability that you will be a victim of forced marriage or honour killing if you return to Turkey.

[13]     With regards to well-founded fear of persecution and risk of harm, given that you’ve been abused by your — I think I’ve already dealt with that. Let’s see. Okay. Given that your ex-boyfriend has abused you in the past, I find that more likely than not he will continue to do so in the future if you were to return to your family in Turkey.

[14]     With regards to state protection, I have considered whether adequate state protection is available to you. There’s a presumption — rebuttable presumption of state protection. Your documentation and the oral evidence credibly show that you were subjected to improper [inaudible] conduct by the police at some point, and the police have visited your home while in Canada at the instigation of XXXX to make you aware of his connections and to threaten you. Your subjective evidence in this respect is consistent with the objective evidence from the NDP for Turkey which reveals that — like I’ve mentioned before, that — the high number of honour killings in Turkey. [inaudible] government media report, honour killings have plagued Turkey for decades. It is unclear if victims were Turkish citizens or if honour killings took place in refugee populations in the country. The objective evidence also shows that individuals convicted of honour killings can be sentenced to life imprisonment, but NGOs report courts can reduce actual sentences due to mitigating factors, which include anger or passion. Actions considered damaging can include extramarital sex, refusal of an arranged marriage, choosing one’s own spouse without family approval, becoming a victim of rape, same-sex sexual acts, or liberal behaviour and dress. The police are also known not to adequately respond to victims of — victims’ complaints, especially women. Your personal experience also demonstrates this. Accordingly, based on the totality of the credible subjective and objective evidence in this case, the Panel finds that — I find that the presumption of adequate state protection is rebutted on the balance of probabilities.

[15]     With regards to internal flight alternative, I considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for you in Istanbul. There are two prongs to the test and both must be met for a viable IFA. In that sense, the prongs are whether a proposed IFA is safe and the second is whether a proposed IFA is reasonable. In this case, I find on the balance of probabilities that there is no viable IFA for you. As indicated in both your subjective evidence and the objective evidence from the NDP, the conditions of institutional [inaudible] Turkey and the persecution of women exists throughout Turkey. You testified that XXXX is wealthy and has connections in government and the police. You described an incident where he got away from the police who had stopped him by a road check by simply making a call. While I do not find that your father can find you in Istanbul based on his profile, I believe you when you say that he can — that XXXX can get you through the police and his connection of wealthy friend in government, and also as he has demonstrated a continued interest to stalk you on the internet [inaudible] by changing your contact details. You’re not expected to live in hiding in the IFA.

[16]     I’ve also considered the fact that you’ve been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. This will interfere with your ability to live a healthy life, thus making it difficult for you to successfully relocate in Turkey. Accordingly, I’m satisfied on the balance of probability that you will face more than a mere possibility of persecution based on your gender anywhere in Turkey and there is no viable IFA in Turkey. So, for all of these reasons, I find that you have successfully established that you face a forward-looking serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground and there is no IFA for you.

[17]     My conclusion: based on the totality of the evidence and my analysis above, I find you to be a Convention refugee and I accept your claim. Congratulations.

——————–REASONS CONCLUDED ——————–

Categories
All Countries China

2021 RLLR 97

Citation: 2021 RLLR 97
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: August 3, 2021
Panel: Roman Kotovych
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Mohammed Tohti
Country: China
RPD Number: TC1-03298
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

DECISION

[1]        MEMBER:  These are my reasons for decision.  The claimant in this case requests refugee protection under Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2]        The claimant’s allegations are set out in his Basis of Claim form.  In summary he’s alleged to be a Chinese Uyghur male who seeks protection on the basis of ethnic persecution in China for his Uyghur ethnicity.

[3]        I find, sir, you to be a Convention refugee and my reasons are as follows.

[4]        First, on the issue of identity I’m satisfied on a balance of probabilities that you’ve established your personal identity and your citizenship.  I base that on the copy of the passport that you presented.  I’m also satisfied on a balance of probabilities that you’ve established your Uyghur heritage.  I find this on a combination of factors including the name present in your passport which I know from experience gained in doing this job, points to being a Uyghur; the birthplace as noted in your passport, which similarly is the Autonomous zone in China; the fact that you testified today in the Uyghur language; you did present a identity card to the camera which I could not read and therefore can make minimal use of but the Arabic script on that card I, I do also have some experience with that that points in that direction; as well as your overall testimony today to point to your Uyghur ethnicity.

[5]        So on a balance of probabilities from the evidence before me largely gained from the passport and from your testimony and the language spoken I find in the circumstances that to be sufficient to establish on a balance of probabilities your Uyghur ethnicity.

[6]        I find that the persecution you’ve alleged has a nexus through Section 96 of ethnicity and nationality along with elements of religion.  I find that you would face on a balance of probabilities a serious possibility of persecution returning to China on the basis of your ethnicity.  This was not a well documented case and I would expect more on a refugee claim with no disclosure from a claimant; however, in the circumstances in the particular circumstances of the country conditions in China, your testimony in appearing before the hearing and the particular circumstances of Uyghurs in China in the particular circumstances of this claim, it is sufficient.  You testified about your past experience in China; your treatment in the past as a Uyghur; what you fear returning; the decisions you made in Malaysia; how you decided to make a refugee claim; and, the reasons why you have had limited contact with your parents in China which would explain some of the limited ability to get disclosure from that country.

[7]        This is supported by the objective country conditions in the NDP which point strongly to the mistreatment of Uyghurs by Chinese authorities as alleged by you, sir, and I do find sufficient objective evidence in the circumstances of this case to point to a serious possibility of persecution going forward in returning to that country.

[8]        On the issue of state protection given that it is the state authorities in China you fear, I find that it would be unreasonable for you to seek protection from them.

[9]        Finally, on the issue of Internal Flight Alternative, I find a lack of Internal Fight Alternative as there is evidence in the country conditions of mistreatment of Uyghurs throughout China and I find in the circumstances that there would not be a location in China where you would not face this serious possibility of harm.

[10]      So for all the above reasons I find you to have a well-founded fear of persecution under Section 96.  For these reasons I find you to be a Convention refugee under the IRPA and I therefore accept your claim.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Categories
All Countries Sri Lanka

2021 RLLR 96

Citation: 2021 RLLR 96
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: September 9, 2021
Panel: Suraj Balakrishnan
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Naseem Mithoowani
Country: Sri Lanka
RPD Number: TC1-02935
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2022-01778
ATIP Pages: N/A

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       The claimant, XXXX XXXX, alleges that he is a citizen of Sri Lanka, and is claiming refugee protection in Canada pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

DETERMINATION

[2]       Having considered all of the evidence, the panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant has established that he would face a serious possibility of persecution in Sri Lanka because of his imputed political opinion in support of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

ALLEGATIONS

[3]       The specifics of the claim are set out in the narrative of the claimant’s Basis of Claim Form, as amended (BOC).[i] The following is a summary of the claimant’s allegations.

[4]       The claimant alleges to be a citizen of Sri Lanka. He fears persecution from Sri Lankan authorities because of his imputed political opinion in support of the LTTE.

IDENTITY

[5]       The claimant’s identity has been established, on a balance of probabilities, through his testimony, as well as documentation filed; namely, copies of his Sri Lankan passport,[ii] national identity card,[iii] and birth certificate.[iv]

NEXUS

[6]       The panel finds that there is a nexus between the harms that the claimant fears and his imputed political opinion in favor of the LTTE. The claim will therefore be assessed pursuant to section 96 of IRPA. The test under section 96 is whether there is a serious possibility of persecution should the claimant return to Sri Lanka and the panel has found that the claimant has met that test.

CREDIBILITY

[7]       When a claimant affirms to tell the truth, this creates a presumption of truthfulness unless there is evidence to the contrary. The claimant’s testimony was consistent with his BOC, detailed, and forthright. When asked about details not set forth in his BOC, the claimant provided spontaneous detail.

[8]       The claimant testified that in 2000, the claimant, his father, and about 80-100 other males were detained and beaten by the Sri Lankan Army on suspicion of being an LTTE supporter. On June 15, 2019, the claimant was approached by Sri Lankan Army personnel at his shop, detained, and taken to a camp for questioning. The Sri Lankan authorities accused the claimant of using his shop to support a war memorial monument, which was raising funds in honor of the LTTE and Tamil families killed during a massacre in May of 2009. The authorities accused him of providing support by donating money and other items from his shop. The authorities physically assaulted the claimant. The claimant acknowledged that he had sold 100 bags of school supplies to one of two people shown by Sri Lankan authorities to the claimant, but told them that he was unaware what it would be used for and that it was not given for free. The claimant was released on June 19, 2019, but was requested to return on July 1, 2019 and then July 20, 2019. After being detained and beaten again on July 20, 2019, the claimant was released on the same day and instructed to return to the camp every two weeks. This prompted the claimant to leave Sri Lanka. Since leaving Sri Lanka, the authorities in Sri Lanka have followed up with the claimant’s family inquiring about the claimant’s whereabouts on multiple occasions.

[9]       The claimant produced extensive documentation in support of his claim. This includes (i) multiple letters of support from the claimant’s family;[v] (ii) a letter of support from a neighboring shopkeeper;[vi] (iii) a letter of support from a Justice of Peace in Sri Lanka;[vii] (iv) documentation related to the claimant’s shop, including a certificate of registration and bank statements;[viii] and (v) documentation from his interactions with U.S. border authorities on his way to Canada.[ix]

[10]     These submissions help corroborate key events in the claimant’s narrative. There is no reason for the panel to cast doubt on the veracity of these submissions and as such the panel places significant weight on these submissions to support the claimant’s allegations and overall claim.

[11]     In specific, the claimant established on a balance of probabilities that Sri Lankan authorities detained and beat him on two occasions because they suspected him of having supported a war memorial monument and, by extension, the LTTE.

OBJECTIVE BASIS

[12]     The objective documentary evidence generally indicates that individuals suspected of supporting LTTE and politically sensitive memorials are targeted by authorities, and that those who are detained face mistreatment. An Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Response to Information Request, citing other sources, notes that “Tamils, particularly in the North and East, reported that security forces “regularly monitored and harassed” community members, especially activists, journalists, and former or suspected former LTTE members.”[x] The source goes on to note that:

Australia’s DFAT states that Tamil community members reported monitoring by authorities of public gatherings and protests in the North and East, and “targeted surveillance and questioning of individuals and groups” (Australia 4 Nov. 2019, para. 3.11). The same source reports that people connected to “politically-sensitive” war-related issues, such as “missing persons, land release and memorial events,” are “most likely” to be monitored (Australia 4 Nov. 2019, para. 3.11). Based on his visit to Sri Lanka from 18 to 26 July 2019, a UN Special Rapporteur indicated that he “frequently” received reports of “intimidation and surveillance” in relation to peaceful protests, particularly concerning memorial services for disappeared persons in the North and East (UN 5 May 2020, para. 52). The same source provides the example of soldiers destroying and removing banners and decorations at a memorial ceremony held on 18 May 2019 by the Ampara branch of the Families of the Disappeared Organization at the Thrikovil Manikka Pillayar temple, as well as threatening to arrest and detain demonstrators (UN 5 May 2020, para. 52).[xi]

[13]     The UK Home Office notes that there is a “shocking prevalence” of torture and ill-treatment of detainees.[xii]

[14]     The claimant also produced country conditions documents, which, among other things, generally indicate that the situation in Sri Lanka has deteriorated for the Tamil minority since the election of Gotabaya Rajapaksa in 2019.[xiii]

[15]     Based on the claimant’s testimony and the documentary evidence cited above, the panel finds that his fear of returning to Sri Lanka has an objective basis. The claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Sri Lanka.

STATE PROTECTION

[16]     The panel finds that the Sri Lankan government is the agent of persecution in this case. The country conditions cited above confirm that the state is in fact persecuting individuals like the claimant.

[17]     The panel therefore finds that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection in Sri Lanka.

INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE (IFA)

[18]     The panel considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for the claimant. The agent of persecution is the Sri Lankan government. The documentary evidence cited above regarding the persecution faced by Tamils suspected of supporting politically sensitive memorials and the LTTE is not restricted to any one region of Sri Lanka, although exacerbated in the North and East of the country. The panel finds that there is a serious possibility of persecution for the claimant throughout Sri Lanka and therefore finds that there is no viable internal flight alternative.

CONCLUSION

[19]     Having considered all of the evidence, the panel finds that there is a serious possibility of persecution by Sri Lankan authorities if the claimant returns to Sri Lanka. The panel finds the claimant to be a Convention refugee and accepts his claim.

(signed) Suraj Balakrishnan

September 9, 2021


[i] Exhibits 2 and 5.

[ii] Exhibit 4.

[iii] Id.

[iv] Id.

[v] Exhibit 5.

[vi] Id.

[vii] Id.

[viii] Id.

[ix] Id.

[x] Exhibit 3, NDP 31 May 2021, Item 13.1, LKA200298.E, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 17 August 2020.

[xi] Id.

[xii] Exhibit 3, NDP 31 May 2021, Item 4.11, Country Policy and Information Note. Sri Lanka: Tamil Separatism. Version 6.0. United Kingdom. Home Office. May 2020.

[xiii] Exhibits 6 and 7.